Monday, July 10, 2006
Coupe de Moribund
So the World Cup is over. And yes it hasn’t been the best but my mind is busy thinking what on earth is there to watch now there’s no football on tv.
The final itself was a microcosm of the tournament. It started really promising and then fell away with the main talking points being the illegal play and controversies rather than the exciting football.
Which makes the Italians worthy winners of this tournament. They had the ability to light up the tournament as they did against Germany, instead, chose the pragmatic route to glory.
There were no real heroes this time round and no great teams, with too much diving and cheating going on to lift the tournament.
Referees did not help the tournament, too keen to brandish yellow cards for mis-timed tackles but unwilling to crack down on the cheating that was going on. And that allowed the players to continue to cheat, connive to get opponents sent off and dive around.
As for the broadcasters, some solid performances but nothing special.
This was the BBC’s worst performance at a World Cup. Generally, you expect them to rise to the occasion but, by the end, I was more thinking of how they’d cock this one up.
Read previous blogs for what I think about Motty being past it a long time ago but Mark Lawrenson was a huge disappointment, concentrating on what went wrong, rather than what went right. He also seemed to have his own agenda, such as blaming Paul Robinson for a mistake by John Terry.
In the studio, Alan Shearer wasn’t too bad but didn’t have much original to say, Ian Wright’s still an idiot and Gary Lineker forgot that’s he’s a presenter. He’s actually to blame for a lot of the poor punditry because he led the way in it being an old pro’s reunion rather than an expert analysis.
On the plus side, Martin O’Neill’s stock rose with everyone wondering why he was discounted so quickly by the FA, while Adrian Chiles showed how you present a programme that we can all watch.
The sooner Jonathon Pearce is made the chief commentator the better as well.
BBC’s poorness opened the door for ITV and I actually watched the World Cup Final on ITV.
Some people don’t like him but I like Clyde Tyldesley and, despite detesting his style, David Pleat had a good World Cup and was a better summariser than Lawrenson.
But I still feel ITV didn’t capitalise on BBC’s ineptness. They had good pundits in the studio like Terry Venables and Ruud Gullit. They had presenters who knew what their job was, like Steve Ryder and Jim Rosenthal. But, while they were solid, they didn’t do enough.
Their bigest problem is that at half time in the final, I turned over to BBC because ITV were showing adverts.
And that’s the crux. Gary, Alan et al might not be very good but they’re still better than the same adverts for Guinness, Sony and Budweiser.
Come the next World Cup, I hope that football and coaches realise their job is both to win and to entertain and that the broadcasters actually have a clue about what the public wants, which is to be informed and entertained, not put off by general ineptitude.
The final itself was a microcosm of the tournament. It started really promising and then fell away with the main talking points being the illegal play and controversies rather than the exciting football.
Which makes the Italians worthy winners of this tournament. They had the ability to light up the tournament as they did against Germany, instead, chose the pragmatic route to glory.
There were no real heroes this time round and no great teams, with too much diving and cheating going on to lift the tournament.
Referees did not help the tournament, too keen to brandish yellow cards for mis-timed tackles but unwilling to crack down on the cheating that was going on. And that allowed the players to continue to cheat, connive to get opponents sent off and dive around.
As for the broadcasters, some solid performances but nothing special.
This was the BBC’s worst performance at a World Cup. Generally, you expect them to rise to the occasion but, by the end, I was more thinking of how they’d cock this one up.
Read previous blogs for what I think about Motty being past it a long time ago but Mark Lawrenson was a huge disappointment, concentrating on what went wrong, rather than what went right. He also seemed to have his own agenda, such as blaming Paul Robinson for a mistake by John Terry.
In the studio, Alan Shearer wasn’t too bad but didn’t have much original to say, Ian Wright’s still an idiot and Gary Lineker forgot that’s he’s a presenter. He’s actually to blame for a lot of the poor punditry because he led the way in it being an old pro’s reunion rather than an expert analysis.
On the plus side, Martin O’Neill’s stock rose with everyone wondering why he was discounted so quickly by the FA, while Adrian Chiles showed how you present a programme that we can all watch.
The sooner Jonathon Pearce is made the chief commentator the better as well.
BBC’s poorness opened the door for ITV and I actually watched the World Cup Final on ITV.
Some people don’t like him but I like Clyde Tyldesley and, despite detesting his style, David Pleat had a good World Cup and was a better summariser than Lawrenson.
But I still feel ITV didn’t capitalise on BBC’s ineptness. They had good pundits in the studio like Terry Venables and Ruud Gullit. They had presenters who knew what their job was, like Steve Ryder and Jim Rosenthal. But, while they were solid, they didn’t do enough.
Their bigest problem is that at half time in the final, I turned over to BBC because ITV were showing adverts.
And that’s the crux. Gary, Alan et al might not be very good but they’re still better than the same adverts for Guinness, Sony and Budweiser.
Come the next World Cup, I hope that football and coaches realise their job is both to win and to entertain and that the broadcasters actually have a clue about what the public wants, which is to be informed and entertained, not put off by general ineptitude.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
If music be the food of Mass, strum on
So I write about the liturgy being awful and the next news is that old Pope Bennykins wants rid of guitars in church.
Not a surprise because the story’s been mentioned before. It’s still a disgrace though that one of the best things about a Mass - ie decent music - is the cause of so much controversy.
I’ve never got the Gregorian chants or choral music. For a start, I don’t speak Latin so I don’t know what’s being sung. Also I can’t join in.
To me, that’s the crux. Mass should be a participatory event. For that, it needs to be in the same language so people can understand and join in the responses. The music must also be simple enough for everyone to join in and feel they are part of the Mass.
And that’s the problem with choral music – you’re not meant to join in. I’ve been to high Masses like that and I get very little out of them. Yes the music is lovely but if I want that, I go to a concert. Mass is about praising God and a feeling of belonging to a community united by Christianity and faith. Sitting there bored while listening to some chanting in a language I don’t understand doesn’t fill the whole remit.
That’s not to say guitars and the like are always right. I’ve been to churches where the music group has taken over too far and it becomes more of a performance rather than a Mass.
Music groups are there, pure and simply, to lead the congregation through music. That’s the first and foremost consideration and should always be borne in mind.
Obviously, it’s clear I like guitary folk Masses. I think there’s still a part to play with organ music - a lot of them can be really uplifting crowd-pleasing hymns that you can belt out. But, just like there are crap guitar hymns (Bind us together anyone), there are some really naff Victorian hymns that make dirges sound good (All Nations that on earth do dwell... The next line is ‘ Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice’ which is pretty sodding difficult when you’re singing this apology for a hymn)
BTW, why are most hymns on Songs of Praise crap? There’s occasionally a decent one but, for God’s sake, stop singing turgid old ones and equally crap new ones.
Also, the congregation aren’t muppets. So, while it’s advisable not to change the mass parts every week, don’t keep the same ones for ten years. Same with hymns. Add to the repertoire – more often than not, people in the congregation appreciate new music. As long as its good.
And also liturgically correct. At university, I did spend every week vetoing hymns on the grounds they ahd nothing to do with this week’s liturgy (singing Alleluia during Lent for example)
If the lay community is going to be involved more in the Mass, as I believe we should, we need to show we have the ability to do it.
Not a surprise because the story’s been mentioned before. It’s still a disgrace though that one of the best things about a Mass - ie decent music - is the cause of so much controversy.
I’ve never got the Gregorian chants or choral music. For a start, I don’t speak Latin so I don’t know what’s being sung. Also I can’t join in.
To me, that’s the crux. Mass should be a participatory event. For that, it needs to be in the same language so people can understand and join in the responses. The music must also be simple enough for everyone to join in and feel they are part of the Mass.
And that’s the problem with choral music – you’re not meant to join in. I’ve been to high Masses like that and I get very little out of them. Yes the music is lovely but if I want that, I go to a concert. Mass is about praising God and a feeling of belonging to a community united by Christianity and faith. Sitting there bored while listening to some chanting in a language I don’t understand doesn’t fill the whole remit.
That’s not to say guitars and the like are always right. I’ve been to churches where the music group has taken over too far and it becomes more of a performance rather than a Mass.
Music groups are there, pure and simply, to lead the congregation through music. That’s the first and foremost consideration and should always be borne in mind.
Obviously, it’s clear I like guitary folk Masses. I think there’s still a part to play with organ music - a lot of them can be really uplifting crowd-pleasing hymns that you can belt out. But, just like there are crap guitar hymns (Bind us together anyone), there are some really naff Victorian hymns that make dirges sound good (All Nations that on earth do dwell... The next line is ‘ Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice’ which is pretty sodding difficult when you’re singing this apology for a hymn)
BTW, why are most hymns on Songs of Praise crap? There’s occasionally a decent one but, for God’s sake, stop singing turgid old ones and equally crap new ones.
Also, the congregation aren’t muppets. So, while it’s advisable not to change the mass parts every week, don’t keep the same ones for ten years. Same with hymns. Add to the repertoire – more often than not, people in the congregation appreciate new music. As long as its good.
And also liturgically correct. At university, I did spend every week vetoing hymns on the grounds they ahd nothing to do with this week’s liturgy (singing Alleluia during Lent for example)
If the lay community is going to be involved more in the Mass, as I believe we should, we need to show we have the ability to do it.
